[Note: This is Part Two of a two-part series investigating the economic potential for investing in the management of land, wildlife, biodiversity, and water resources. Part One covered economic incentives from government programs for establishing conservation practices, and can be viewed here. Part Two addresses private sources of revenue that can be generated from establishing creative and multi-use land use practices and programming.] 

Wal-Mart is not often celebrated as a leader in the environmental movement (though if you analyze its most recent efforts to green its operations, perhaps it is moving in the right direction). Nonetheless, Wal-Mart’s former CEO, Lee Scott, had it right when he stated in 2005, “Being a good steward of the environment and of our communities, and being an efficient and profitable business are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are one and the same.”

As landowners are faced with innumerable questions about how to derive the most satisfaction from their land, this is a quote that should come readily to mind. Indeed, as more and more landowners are finding, instituting conservation-oriented practices has become a wildly lucrative option. It should come as no surprise, then, that despite the catastrophic effects of the Great Recession, land trusts have conserved over 10 million acres nationwide in the past five years, according to the national Land Trust Alliance.

For many landowners, however, the prospect of giving up any level of control over their land, whether through easements or enrolling in public programs, is not an attractive option. And for others, the tax benefits and annual payments may not cover their expenses. Luckily, for both of these groups, an incredible number of opportunities exists for generating revenue from instituting conservation-oriented practices.

Investing in outdoor recreation is one of these opportunities. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, hunting and fishing generate a combined $2.7 billion in economic activity each year. By consciously managing the land in order to promote the growth and preservation of wildlife habitat, clean water, and healthy populations of targeted species, landowners can position themselves to benefit from such economic activity through access permits and the like. By further investing in amenities like shooting stands and blinds, boating docks, and even guest lodging, landowners can establish their property as a prime destination for sporting enthusiasts.

Consider The Fork Farm & Stables in Stanly County, NC for example. When Jim Cogdell purchased the property in 1999, he did so with the intent of renewing, conserving, and preserving the natural beauty of the land. Having committed to land and wildlife conservation while still operating the property as a working farm, Cogdell has established The Fork as a premiere sporting destination, with amenities including shooting facilities, fishing, equestrian facilities and trails, hiking and biking trails, golf, and outdoor education programming.

For those not interested in visitor fees as a source of revenue, another option to consider is the monetization of ecosystem services. As requirements for protecting stormwater quality and quantity, air pollution, and biodiversity continue to become ever more stringent, developers, localities, and corporations are searching high and low for ways to offset the environmental impacts of their activities. Indeed, according to the Ecosystem Marketplace, wetland mitigation credits prices range anywhere from $3,000 to $600,000 per acre of wetland, with the prices rising every year. On a broader scale, the wetland mitigation market, biodiversity markets, and forest carbon markets are all setting new records each year.

Though the sale of these credits typically requires fairly large, continuous tracts of lands, opportunities do exist for landowners of smaller properties to benefit financially from the ecosystem services on their lands. In 2004, the Blue Ridge Forest Cooperative was formed as a method for giving smaller timberland owners from North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia greater access to local and national timber markets. The Cooperative has been immensely successful and has enabled its members to sell over 12 different wood products to markets they had not previously had access to. Further, in an effort to realize the full value of the members’ lands, the Cooperative is laying the groundwork for entering the markets for carbon and stream restoration credits.

If generating revenue from ecosystem services doesn’t suit a landowner’s fancy, he or she can always consider a residential development. More specifically, a conservation community. Conservation communities are residential developments that, logically, are designed with a central focus on conserving the land in order to maintain its rural character.  Housing sites are chosen with an eye toward taking advantage of views without being visible themselves. Roads and driveways are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.  And stormwater is managed through low impact development rather than through traditional drains and pipes. When properly designed, conservation communities provide residential options while simultaneously minimizing the impact on the land.

Bundoran Farm serves as a prime example of just such a development. Located on 2,300 acres, this area was designed to function in harmony with a working farm while providing 102 home sites, each ranging in size from 2 to 150 acres for a total disturbance of only 20% of the original property. The construction costs for the development were significantly reduced compared with traditional residential developments due to reduced road widths and the use of vegetated swales rather than traditional curbs and gutters. As a result of the efforts to preserve the land and provide a high quality of life for residents, the development’s stakeholders have enjoyed increased property prices, with lots selling for between $250,000 and over $1 million.

The potential financial benefits of investing in conservation are clear. Whether a landowner chooses to solicit public or private sources of funding, they have a wide range of options from which to choose. In many cases, the best approach can even involve generating revenue from both sets of funding sources. For example, a landowner can receive cost-sharing payments for protecting wildlife habitat and then can sell hunting permits to those wishing to access that habitat. Regardless of the approach taken by a landowner, ensuring the economic viability of his or her land is a key step in achieving genuine sustainability. As Verilyn Klinkenbord, author of Crossing Borders: Good News from the Badlands, wrote, “Many have said, ‘The land must be productive.’ By saying this, they aren’t just articulating an old-fashioned view about man’s dominance over nature. They are arguing for what one neighbor calls ‘working wilderness.’ They are saying that unless there is some economic return to the land, there is no defense at all against the pressures of development, which are spiraling outward from nearly every city and small town in the West.”

Since its construction in 1940, Lake Greenwood has become a valuable asset of the local community as well as for the entire Upstate of South Carolina. This 11,400 acre lake, which is the main water source for Greenwood and much of Greenwood County, also serves as a hub for a number of recreational pursuits which have fostered significant population and economic growth in this region. History has revealed that both positive impacts and challenges result from increased levels of population and economic activity in a given area – and the Lake Greenwood community is no exception to this rule.

According to the Saluda-Reedy Watershed Consortium (SRWC), “a broad based coalition of universities, non-profit organizations, government agencies and private businesses which have conducted a wide range of research on Lake Greenwood and its watershed”, several obstacles concerning water quality must be overcome in order to ensure the future health of Lake Greenwood. The 745,600 acre Saluda-Reedy Watershed (SRW) and Lake Greenwood have a long history of dealing with unwanted effluents. For decades the Saluda River and the Reedy River carried away many types of wastes from growing industry and development in the Upstate. The implementation of regulations on unwanted industrial effluents such as the Clean Water Act of 1972 made a major impact on the current water quality of the SRW and Lake Greenwood. However, Lake Greenwood and the SRW currently face new health threats – the SRWC has identified sediment from upstream development, stormwater runoff, and phosphorus from wastewater discharges as the main causes that affect the cleanliness and levels of water in Lake Greenwood.

A study by the SRWC reports that 307 acres of Lake Greenwood has been lost to sedimentation in the upper part of the lake. If this process continues there is the potential for negative impacts such as the loss of waterfront land, harmful pollutants, and decreased boat and recreational access. Major algae bloom, which Lake Greenwood experienced in 1999, is another real threat…

“[w]hen an overload of phosphorus and nitrogen are introduced to the lake, algae growth can increase to an uncontrollable level. As the algae dies and sinks to the bottom, the decay process consumes a substantial amount of dissolved oxygen. A combination of low bottom-water oxygen levels and high surface water temperatures that often occur in the summer can leave many fish and other aquatic life with little or no suitable habitat.”

Land use along the shore of Lake Greenwood is another critical aspect of the water quality. Some lakeside development produces soil erosion, loss of shoreline vegetation, and toxic runoff which contribute to poor water quality.

This research makes a strong argument that the health of Lake Greenwood is in jeopardy. Growth and development in upstate South Carolina have once again reached a level that is causing detrimental impacts to Lake Greenwood. However, these findings also shed light on the implementation of proven methods that helped Lake Greenwood overcome water quality problems forty years ago. Although government regulations and policies like the ones implemented in the past are part of the solution, they are not the only effective measures to help improve the water quality. Conservation easements on properties within the Saluda-Reedy Watershed can have a major impact in the effort to improve Lake Greenwood’s water quality. These properties consist of those with Saluda & Reedy River frontage as well as lake front parcels and the preservation of land within this watershed will have a direct effect on reducing the amount of pollution that enters Lake Greenwood.

In addition to qualifying for conservation easements, large acreage tracts with significant frontage on Lake Greenwood are unique pieces of real estate with regards to the current real estate market. Unlike large timber and recreational tracts in this area, a strong demand for lake lots is in place resulting in stable values throughout the economic downturn. This market indicator reveals that undeveloped lake frontage has good investment potential from a lake lot development perspective. A savvy investor should recognize the enhanced investment potential of a large acreage tract with significant frontage on Lake Greenwood. A property with these features offers significant tax benefits through a conservation easement on designated areas as well as mitigation opportunities for sustainable lake lot development. In addition, the stark contrast of the current market for lake lots and large acreage recreational and timber tracts allows an investor to assess the value of a large acreage tract with significant lake frontage from two separate vantage points which is advantageous.

Lake Greenwood is a treasured resource of Upstate South Carolina and for the last seventy years this lake has contributed to the economic growth of the area while also facing water quality challenges. This constant struggle is a familiar story for waterways and wetlands across the southeast and the decision to sacrifice clean water for financial returns and vice versa is never easy. Fortunately, in some circumstances the two are not mutually exclusive. Sustainable development, if implemented properly, can facilitate the co-existence of clean water and financial returns given certain market trends and property location. These conditions currently apply to large acreage tracts with significant undeveloped lake frontage on Lake Greenwood resulting in a rare opportunity to assist in the protection of Lake Greenwood with a positive return on investment.

[This is Part One of a two-part series investigating the economic potential for investing in the management of land, wildlife, biodiversity, and water resources. Part One covers economic incentives from government programs for establishing conservation practices. Part Two will address private sources of revenue that can be generated from establishing creative and multi-use land use practices and programming.]

On March 1, 1872, Congress signed into law an act that established Yellowstone National Park, the first of 58 protected areas to eventually be designated as national parks. Thus signaled the start of an era in national policy characterized by heavy public investment in conservation and land management.

As of 2010, 138 years later, the Bureau of Land Management held nearly 248 million acres of public land. However, this represents a decrease of two million acres from 2009 and a decrease of 5.5 million acres from 2008. This reduction reflects an effort on the part of public officials who would prefer to see the federal government take a more limited role in conservation efforts while also using the revenue from sales of public lands to pay down the national debt. It also demonstrates a shifting priority away from direct public investment in conservation through outright land purchases and toward providing incentives to individuals and organizations to purchase and manage the land themselves.

While some see this shift as troubling because it means conservation efforts are more haphazard and subject to the varying goals of individual landowners, others see it as an incredibly lucrative opportunity to invest in conservation. Take T. Boone Pickens, for example. Recognizing the economic potential of Texas ranches, he has made a name for himself (and a lot of money) by buying working livestock ranches, improving them with wildlife enhancement programs, and then reselling them. As he recently told The Land Report, “We always made a profit from the ranch sales. But what I really feel good about is knowing that we left the land in better shape than we found it.”

Now it should be noted that Pickens benefitted from a particularly generous set of public incentives with which to offset the costs of his land management programs. You see, Texas implemented a program in 1995 that allows landowners who implement specific land and wildlife management practices to have their land appraised as agricultural land, thereby greatly decreasing their annual tax burden. For those who live in states that do not provide such generous incentives to invest in wildlife management, however, there is an array of state and federal programs that provide payments to landowners for engaging in other various conservation-oriented practices.

While these include such obvious options as securing a conservation easement, landowners also have the option of enrolling in less-permanent programs like the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). In each, government agencies provide cost-sharing and annual payments to landowners that agree to set aside their lands for five- to ten-year periods and commit to protecting and improving wildlife areas, in the case of WHIP, or taking agricultural lands out of production, in the case of CRP and CREP. Case studies abound of landowners who have used these, and other, public programs to help establish and fund conservation efforts and then benefitted greatly from the increased property values when they eventually sold the property.

One of the best examples is that of Robert Macdonald of Triple Chance Farm in Cambridge, Maryland. After recognizing that he could not generate sufficient income from growing cash crops on his land Mr. Macdonald decided to take his land out of production and instead establish an “outdoorsman’s paradise.” With financial incentives from the CRP, CREP, and WHIP programs, Mr. Macdonald developed and instituted a maintenance plan geared toward planting native species that would provide habitat for quail, woodcock, and other bird species. After improving his land over the course of 30 years, Mr. Macdonald fielded bids from five families all vying for his property when he sold in 2009 in the worst real estate market since the Great Depression.

In this era of economic uncertainty, investors are looking for safe bets in the market. Since the housing bubble burst, real estate investment trusts have outperformed the broader market by considerable margins. And best of all, they’re set to continue that trend this year. With help from state and federal programs, landowners can promote greater biodiversity, healthier wildlife populations, and improved water quality, all while earning a strong return on their investment. As T. Boone Pickens put it, what better feeling than to know you’ve improved the land around you and walked away with a few more dollars in your pocket as a result?

Considering conservation buffers on your land?  The USDA has 250,000 or more buffer contracts with about 160,000 farms and ranches. They may be a good choice for your land and for the environment. They are also economically viable for most operations.  The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP) is one of the programs that provide financial incentives for farmers and ranchers.

Conservation buffers are areas or strips of permanent vegetation established around and in cropland. They are placed between surface water areas and agricultural fields. The buffers range in width from 40 feet to 150 feet.

What do Buffers do?

• Minimize Soil Erosion
• Intercept & Buffer Pollutants
• Improve Water & Air Quality
• Enhance Wildlife Habitat
• Conserve, Beautify & Protect

Types of Buffers

• Grassland waterways
• Shelterbelts/Windbreaks
• Living Snow Fences
• Wetland Restoration
• Filter Strips & Trap Strips
• Shallow Water Areas
• Farmable Wetland Buffers

Why Use Buffers?

• Signing Payments up to $150 per acre
• Up to 50% Cost Sharing for Implementation
• Annual Rental Incentives from 10-40%

Programs for Assistance with Establishing Buffers

Many groups like Pheasants Forever and Quail Unlimited strongly support buffers and provide support and assistance. Even rural farm land loan lenders consider them a good choice. Combing land conservation with farming is possible with the many different programs available. The largest program is the CCRP but other programs are available to help landowners offset the cost of installing buffers on their land.  Some of the programs to learn about include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Wildlife Habitat Program (WHP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP).

Managing and Maintaining Conservation Buffers

Buffers should be managed in accordance with an overall plan for the entire piece of land for them to be most effective.  By coordinating your efforts you can minimize the runoff and sediment that reaches the buffers to begin with. Buffers must be maintained to work and remain efficient and productive.

How to Maintain Buffers

• Mowing & Weed Control
• Controlled Grazing
• Hay Harvesting
• Removing Sediment Deposits
• Minimize Heavy Equipment Traffic on Buffer Land

The Effect of Buffers on the Area

Maintaining buffers can truly help the water quality on your land. They can help reduce field runoff and soil erosion and easily integrated into other existing on your property. Conservation buffers help reduce sediment and agricultural chemicals that build up in surface water tables.  The vegetation helps soak up the runoff and in turn the nutrients help the vegetation. Buffers can reduce runoff from 50-100%.  They also help with erosion control and they give what was probably wasteland some income which increase profitability on your investment.

Buffers are flexible in size, relatively easy to maintain, protect the land and many resources are available to help establish them on your property.  For more information on buffers contact your local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or Farm Service Agency (FSA) where you own your land and ask about the buffer conservation programs or visit the USDA website.  Also contact your local state foresty office.

The number of people who are contemplating relocating to rural areas so they can live “off-grid” is increasing. I have received enough phone calls from people searching for off-grid properties in the past few months to prompt me to look into what these buyers are searching for. This article highlights some of the characteristics that are appealing to off-grid land buyers.

Before you read the list below, please allow me to say that prospective buyers for off-grid properties are often unfairly stereotyped as being anti-government, alarmists, militia members, and conspiracists. There is certainly an assemblage of people living off-grid that fit that description, but there are also a number of families that want to “get back to the land” and lead a more sustainable, environmentally-conscious lifestyle. One of our agents sold an 80 acre parcel that joined the Talladega National Forest to a man that wanted to build a yurt and farm and hunt his land. I mention the motivations of some of these buyers so that land agents and brokers do not dismiss a buyer because of a pre-conceived notion about a prospective customer.

1. Distance from a big city. Many of these buyers like the idea of being far enough away from big cities to prevent people from easily walking to their land, but also want to be close enough to enjoy some of the amenities the big city offers like shopping, restaurants, and quality medical care. There is a train of thought that reasons if there is a mass exodus from the larger cities, then you should own land that is not easily accessible by throngs of people looking for food and shelter.

Marion, Alabama, where I live, is 25 miles to the closest Super Wal-Mart, so I am already in the small number (10%) of Americans that are over 15 miles from a Wal-Mart. I appreciate the sentiment that a little geography is a better buffer between neighbors than a 6-foot privacy fence. Rural areas that are 60 to 100 miles from a larger city are going to be appealing to off-grid buyers.

2. Water source. To be off-grid, land needs to have access to a reliable source of fresh water. Alabama is blessed with numerous rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, aquifers, and ponds. This type property requires the ability to drill a private well or utilize an existing spring or creek to bring water to the home.

Additionally, the land will need to pass a percolation test and be permitted by the County Health Department to ensure that the soils allow for the septic system to function properly and remain sanitary.

3. Agriculture/Gardening. Off-grid buyers are often interested in growing their own livestock, keeping a garden, planting an orchard, raising poultry and farming fish on their land. Locating a property with fertile soils and a long growing cycle are important for increasing the prospect that a farm can be more self-sufficient.

4. Joining National Forest or Wildlife Areas. I personally believe, that “Good Forests Make Good Neighbors”. Owning land that borders large tracts of government or privately-owned is desirable because it limits who will be moving in next door. Many of these forests are open to public hunting and use, so finding a property that joins an out-of-the-way corner of the forest helps limit the number of hunters you will see and increases the amount of usable land you’ll have.

5. Minimal Building and Zoning Restrictions. Buyers are looking for areas where they can build energy-efficient or unconventional dwellings and use atypical materials if they desire. I mentioned earlier a man that wanted to construct a yurt, and there are some people in Hale County, Alabama that have used old blue jeans and earth to fashion a home. In addition to exotic home construction, it is also appealing to be able to erect a HAM radio tower, have a wind turbine, water wheel, or other structures that are limited in urban areas.

6. Energy Sources. One primary consideration would obviously include energy-generating potential from solar, wind, mini-hydro, and geothermal opportunities. In order to be off-grid and self-sustaining a property must afford the owners a reliable and efficient method of creating power that can be harnessed to supply whatever appliances they must use.

Other considerations for off-grid property would be the availability of satellite internet and telephone, rural land prices, annual property taxes, hunting restrictions, firearm freedoms, road maintenance (if heavy snows restrict use), and other features that allow owners to be self-sustaining.

It appears that the market for off-grid rural land is going to continue growing over the next few years, and is a segment that rural land brokerages and agents should probably pay attention to.

Parties who have polar-opposite interests easily endorse the value of balance in land-use planning policies. Everyone wants to strike a balance between the benefits of development and the benefits of as-is, between the public costs of private development and the public costs of as-is.

Where the balance is finally struck rarely satisfies everyone. But solutions where each party gains a little more than each loses are increasingly possible. Deals of this sort require flexibility, creativity and a willingness to negotiate.

The amount of agricultural land — crop land and pasture — is declining in the U.S., mainly because population growth targets it for residential and commercial development. Most of the pressure on open, agricultural space spreads out from metropolitan areas and towns. Agricultural land is also used for second homes and a variety of commercial, public and non-profit projects. Building on what is considered “open” agricultural land is usually cheaper and easier than building on land already built on, which is why development is drawn to such parcels.

The idea of preserving privately owned agricultural land amid commercial and residential development emerged in the 60s and 70s as a response to the increasingly familiar pattern of sprawl and commercial strips. Both sticks and carrots were used to effect a public use of private property. Comprehensive plans and zoning restricted development and directed certain uses over others. Federal and state legislation offered substantial tax benefits to landowners who donated some or all of their development rights to preserve agricultural uses and open space.

Oregon was a battleground for many of these conflicts, beginning in the 70s when Senate Bill 100 set up a state land-use-planning policy and agency (Department of Land Conservation and Development, DLCD) that delegated implementation of DLCD state-wide guidelines to local jurisdictions. Land-use planning was more popular in the Portland-Eugene corridor than in the state’s rural areas. During the last 15 years, the system has been challenged with referenda and court cases, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

One key issue has been whether private landowners should be fairly compensated by public money when land-use restrictions devalue their property. As it stands, if Oregonian governments — state or local — want to restrict development on private property, they must either pay the landowner for the reduction in value or forego restrictions. As a matter of practice, public agencies can’t pay, so restrictions are now dropped.

A balance is wanting here in my opinion. The no-pay philosophy was out of whack, and the no-restrictions antithesis is too. More than $15 billion claims for compensation have been filed, and none paid as far as I know.

The Wall Street Journal ran a piece on April 2^nd, “Oregon Pear Growers Sour on Land Law,” by Joel Millman, that examined the predicament of pear farmers in the Rogue River Valley near Medford. Pear farming has declined, both in terms of the number of farms and acreage. Three companies now account for about 90 percent of the Valley’s production.

Their problem is that they want to move their orchards to more rural areas but can’t sell their close-in land for market value because land-use regs require that it be kept in agriculture. No one, it appears, wants to pay $10,000/A for this perpetual agricultural land, and the owners aren’t allowed to sell it for its HBU value — $100,000/A — which would give them the money to move their operations farther out. The seller doesn’t want to sell for what he’s allowed to sell it for, and no buyers are allowed to buy it for what it’s worth.

1000 Friends of Oregon, a long-standing land-use and conservation organization, opposes loosening restrictions on agricultural land sales. They and other opponents of revising the system argue that HBU sales would shift the costs of development to citizens, and more land going into development would reduce land available for farmers to buy, thus raising its price.

The land-use controversy in Oregon has a long history and has solidified both sides. I don’t claim to speak with authority on its many related issues.

Still, I don’t like public takings of private property, though I admit that some circumstances exist where the general good outweighs the individual property right. I remember that one good friend was so angry at having her small apartment building confiscated for a small city parking lot that she refused to pick up the $300,000 check, which sat in escrow for many years until her death. Taking is a public power that’s easily abused.

Confiscating a use right without fair compensation — which seems to be what’s going on in effect with these pear producers — narrows the cost of environmental protection that benefits everyone to just these landowners.

If the public wants to preserve open land, then public dollars of one sort or another should pay for it.  Bonds pay for schools, bonds can pay for open space. Tax credits can be offered directly to the landowners, or purchase money can be raised through their sale to other parties. An off-set system could be set up that would allow development of some of this disputed land in return for the purchase and preservation of other land in the community as open space.

I’m much more in tune with preserving open space as parks — ranging from developed recreation to leave-it-be space — in cities and towns than keeping it in agriculture. I think the public benefits more from open space with many uses than it does with private land locked into one use that excludes most public benefits. Urban community gardens are a great way to keep city space open and green, but that’s a different set of issues than the pear controversy.

I understand why environmental-protection laws are set up with few, if any, exceptions. But they inevitably produce cases like this one where a better balanced outcome seems out of reach.

Over the years, I’ve become less enthusiastic about conservation easements as they apply to timberland.

Among the mixed bag of reasons for my unease are:

1. Deliberate inflation of timber value to inflate the size of the easement value to inflate the size of the tax benefits available to the landowner;

2. Questionable assignments of environmental value to certain timberland tracts, which is the first hurdle in qualifying land for conservation-easement status;

3. Overly strict restrictions on cutting timber that have little, if anything, to do with protecting the environmental values of the tract;

4. A bias toward applying wilderness (“forever wild”; no-use) standards to non-wilderness lands in a way that doesn’t benefit the environmental values that should be protected;

5. Easement donors who don’t fully understand the long-term financial implications for spouses and heirs of severing a valuable, appreciating right in a property, particularly when it’s one of their principal financial assets;

6. Revenue loss for local governments that reduce assessed property value to reflect the donation of the easement; and

7. Long-term reduction in the amount of land capable of producing wood products, broadly defined, which may or may not affect timber supply and prices in the future.

Still, I endorse the use of conservation easements for certain types of timberland and other lands. I work with clients who use them as part of their acquisition strategies. I’m not opposed to leaving private lands completely free of human intervention, though I think that usually carries the notion of protection too far and winds up putting important environmental values at risk.

While it doesn’t address some of the issues I’ve listed above, a Working Forest Conservation Easement (WFCE) does address several important ones. A WFCE envisions timberland to be managed for timber production over a long period. This can involve annual timber-sale income in the case of a very large tract or income spaced, say, every 15 or 25 years, for smaller tracts of mixed-age, mixed-species woods. The emphasis is on long-term returns from sustainable management rather than a short-term emphasis of maximized revenue. Use restrictions that would impede managing the woodlands as a working forest are not imposed.

The rights that the WFCE limits relate to residential and commercial development. The value of these rights depends on the location of the property and other factors, but it could amount to as much as 50 percent of current fair market value. The value of the easement would typically include the estimated value of the development rights (residential, commercial, mineral) foregone along with the foregone value of merchantable timber not cut in the short run.

One version of a WFCE was developed to protect and work with about 2,200 acres of California redwoods in the Van Eck Forest. The concept was pioneered by the Pacific Forest Trust (PFT) whose goal is to preserve productive private forests for all their public benefits—the delivery of wood, water, wildlife and a well-balanced climate. PFT incorporated carbon storage in its management plan for both climatic and financial reasons. The forest generates income from the sale of both timber and carbon credits. (Laurie Wayburn, “THE VAN ECK FOREST: Carbon Markets and the New Economic Paradigm for Forest Sustainability,” in James N. Levitt, ed., Conservation Capital in the Americas: Exemplary Conservation Finance Initiatives, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy/Island Press, 2010)

A WFCE generates income for the landowner; maintains significant, appreciating value for heirs; incorporates environmental values into its timber-management plan; continues timber production from a renewable resource in a sustainable manner; and offers the option of generating income from the timberland through carbon credits and hunting leases, if desired.

Making arrangements for the sale of the landowner’s timber-stored carbon is a critical part of the PFT’s approach. It’s cumbersome and costly for small landowners to work through the Chicago Climate Exchange, but it’s possible…and it may become easier in the future.

I emailed a request for more information.

The broker faxed me materials related to the property’s features, boundaries, topography, deed and a…conservation easement.

I read through the 12-page easement.

The seller’s easement had stripped out almost all of the land’s intrinsic (economic)  value. The woods could not be “commercially harvested” under any circumstances. This included salvage sales in the event of a hurricane or gypsy-moth mortality; firewood sales from broken trees or single blow downs; sale of timber that could arise from a power-line easement being forced on the landowner; or sale of timber from improving wildlife forage opportunities. Trees could not be cut to control fire on the property. It appeared to me that the easement prohibited the owner from paying a caretaker/watchman in downed firewood, since that arrangement could be converted into dollars and, hence, amount to a commercial sale.

The easement did not prohibit having a chainsaw on the property, but it essentially eliminated its use for anything other than gathering personal firewood. It was questionable whether an owner could use a chainsaw to remove downed trees over the property’s interior roads, even though removal would facilitate low-impact recreation like hiking and bird-watching, not to mention making the property safer in terms of fire suppression and emergency rescue.

The easement allowed one division of the property. It also allowed one small house to be erected on one — but not both — of the parcels. It did not say whether a utility easement could be cut through the woods for an overhead line. It did not say whether trees taken down to develop a new road or power-line easement could be sold. It did not say whether a new road or power line could be installed at all. The easement neither authorized a sale of road/utility easement timber nor prohibited it. In that event, the conservation organization that held this easement in perpetuity would make the call in the spirit and text of the easement as a whole. I’d interpret that as a future NO.

All commercial uses of the property were prohibited, including agriculture of any kind. The owner could not sell a mushroom or ginseng root. He could not plant an organic herb garden on 100 square feet and sell the herbs He could not lease the stream for fishing or the trails for horseback riding. Hunting, of course, was also prohibited.

The seller undoubtedly believed that he had conserved the property forever as he saw it in 2005. Easements can’t stop the inevitable changes in land that work sometimes for the better, but sometimes for the worse. An easement doesn’t lock land in a time capsule.

The seller had burdened the land with over-the-top use prohibitions and taken the maximum amount of easement tax benefit against his then-current income. Maybe it made sense to him when he did it, but I expect he might have second and third thoughts about it today.

I heard that he had tried marketing the property at about $1,750/a, then dropped the price in painful steps down to $875. I might have been a buyer at $100/a, but I would have stretched my judgment to get even there.

This seller had, in my opinion, taken a preservation-type conservation easement beyond where it needed to be to preserve the environmental health and integrity of his property. The seller bought into the idea that if some restrictions are good, a ton of them are better. Proof of this proposition is debatable.

A less restrictive easement would have retained considerably more sale value in the dirt.

If you’re planning to sell land, I advise that you be very careful in designing a conservation easement. Balancing your short-term tax benefits, environmental values and sale expectations is the goal. Imbalance brings its own penalties.

New homes should be, say Avrim and Vicki Topel in Green Beginnings: The Story of How We Built Our Green & Sustainable Home, 2008, $40, at www.greenbeginningsconsulting.com.

The Topels’ new house uses materials and building practices that conform to strict environmental guidelines established by a private rule-making and inspection organization. It was built to be low-maintenance and cheap to operate. Up-front cost was less a consideration than long-term savings. Looks were very important.

Green Beginnings is a helpful memoir of a 21-month project that introduces the reader to the process of constructing a house which qualifies for LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification from the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). The USGBC provides information and links to suppliers and practitioners.

LEED certification demands that both the building process and the end product comply with detailed rules about materials and practices in six areas: energy and atmosphere, water usage, sustainable sites, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and location and linkages. An inspection, costing between $500 and $5,000, judges whether the project complies sufficiently to gain certification.

Several years ago, the Topels wanted a change. They were living on seven acres with five in mowed-weekly lawn with 8,000 square feet of finished space on four floors. They wanted to downsize to reduce maintenance and upkeep costs.

They could not find a low-maintenance, energy-efficient smaller home outside of Philadelphia. They chose not to green up an existing house, including their own. So they sold and built smaller next door on a lot they owned.

They started out wanting one floor, a timber-frame great room with a floor-to-ceiling stone fireplace, solar panels and a geothermal heat-exchanger. They budgeted between $750,000 and $1.5 million, assuming a cost of between $250 and $300 per square foot for 3,000 to 4,000 square feet.

Their builder introduced them to green products and the idea of sustainable building. The Topels converted on the spot. Their house became a “deeply transformational and major life-changing event…that awakened us spiritually.”

They ended up with a T-shaped structure that incorporated prefabricated components and some timber-framing. Solar and geothermal were dropped.

Their architect wanted to develop a line of sustainable homes in the $600,000 to $2-million-dollar price range, so he saw their project as the chance to make a green statement. In their words: “As far as the professionals [builder, architect, project manager, engineer, landscape architect] were concerned, a LEED project was what everyone was chomping at the bit for.”  My experience with architects who want to use a client’s money to make a statement for themselves has not been good; the Topels were luckier.

Anyone can build with green products and use these principles and practices without becoming certified.

The only economic benefit of achieving LEED certification that I found in the Topels’ argument was “…our gut told us that…certification was perhaps the single most meaningful action step we could pursue in confirming the monetary value and elevating the resale value of our new home.” No proof of higher resale value for LEED homes was offered beyond the intestinal.

The cost-effectiveness of LEED practices in the Topel house is not addressed. How long will it take for super-duper, energy-efficient windows to pay for themselves in monthly savings as against the vanilla Andersen or Pella?

Green options have to make economic sense for cheap schnooks like me to adopt them. At this time, some options do; some don’t; some might; some are operationally chancy; and some are too new to judge.

The Topels show how they built greenly and expensively, not greenly and cost-effectively. My guess is — a guess because they don’t say — that their LEED house cost more than $1 million. The average 2008 sales price of a home was $292,000.  How much LEED stuff can an average buyer afford at the start even if it makes sense in the long run?

Green choices, like all others, range from cost-effective to ridiculously expensive. LEED allows a counter top to be made from wood, granite or jade as long as each is produced sustainably. The Topels might have used nearby locust for outdoor decking instead of Brazilian mahogany. The mahogany passed LEED muster because it was grown and harvested according to Forest Stewardship Council standards, despite the environmental cost of lugging it from Brazil. Were there not cheaper and as-green alternatives to the Douglas Fir used in the timber framing and the cypress used for exterior siding, neither of which appear to thrive around Philadelphia?

I’ve always felt just a little uncomfortable with indulgences justified by their greenness–like a hybrid Humvee used for grocery shopping. Is a hand-made, “oversized copper front door” a green alternative to plebian wood or simply a beautiful object the Topels wanted and could afford?  I don’t quarrel with self-indulgence much any more now that my wife insists that I buy a new pair of jeans every three or four years. But contrived reasoning still fouls my admittedly deteriorating propeller.

Green Beginnings is weak when it comes to disclosing dollars and cents. The reader is rarely told how much different options cost installed; how much the conventional and less-green options cost; how the dollars net out from up-front cost and long-term savings for the greenest choice compared with others; what the pay-back time is for each “cost-saving” green system; and the square-foot cost of building one way against others.

Readers would also be helped by a floor plan and a detailed site plan.

The Topels rejected geothermal heating and cooling because it cost three times as much as a conventional forced-air system and more than the radiant system they chose. Other examples of weighing costs against green benefits would have been informative.

Some green ideas are cost-effective substitutes for conventional products and practices, and others are not. The Topels don’t compare green apples to other colors since green had become their spiritual core.

The economic case for green construction has to be based on the combination of initial expense plus long-term savings. If the up-front cost is too high, the savings over many years won’t make the investment economically sensible. This is why suburbs are not festooned with photovoltaic panels.

The Topels are among the first to erect a green trophy house. They write that “…to be able to tell our guests that the trim in the house actually came from the poplar trees on our property was priceless.” They agreed to make part of their roof vegetative even though it doubled the square-foot cost, because “the benefits of having a green roof are almost as impressive as the conversation value that a green roof brings with it.” We now have a new set of bragging rights.

Green Beginnings, the book, is one component of the Topels’ new business, which is showing what they did. I wish them well and hope they are allowed to write off the entire cost of their new house as a business expense.

But those who are inclined to join them on the LEEDing edge should acquire a lot more information and help before heading into this semi-charted frontier.

Owning country property often raises unsettling questions about personal environmental morality, an idea that did not start with Jimmy Carter’s cardigan sweater and now wants you to squeeze your carbon foot into Greenerella’s glass slipper.

The specter of environmental catastrophe — ice caps melting, polar bears stalking dice-rollers in Atlantic City casinos, Vermont Yankees tapping palm trees — is moving us toward a “green economy” and a greener lifestyle.

If you’re living in the country or considering buying a place out here, you may want to think about how green you want to be…and how much you want to pay for it. As in many other efforts to change our ways, the first dollars invested in greenery yield the biggest improvements while the last increments of getting there often come in costly baby steps.

Here are some major considerations.

Transportation. You can’t live in or visit the country without at least one vehicle.

If snow and mud are seasonal companions, you’ll need an all-wheel-drive or 4WD-vehicle for mobility and safety. Generally speaking, the heavier these beasts, the more they eat, the more expensive they are to maintain and the less green they are by every measure..

A small, 4WD-drive, gasoline-powered truck is probably your best all-purpose country vehicle at this time. The Toyota Tacoma and Nissan Frontier have high ratings.

Full-size, gasoline pickups are expensive to buy and operate, handle badly and have big carbon footprints. (I write as an owner.) You will need one if you’re hauling trailers. Otherwise, smaller pickups are cheaper, greener and generally able to do the same job at lower cost.

No diesel-powered, small pickups are available, even though these engines are now greener than gasoline equivalents. Large pickups are available with diesels, starting at about $38,000, though they can hardly be considered green. The two hybrids available –Chevy Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500 — are full-size trucks that start at the same $38,000.

Second homes, green or not? If you own a second home, you inevitably use more energy, have a bigger carbon footprint and carry a bigger environmental impact than if you had only one. Some environmentalists oppose second-home ownership for these reasons, although many environmentalists I know own second homes because of their environmental sentiments. Consistency can be the hobgoblin of minds yearning to be green.

I’ve noticed second-home owners using a small car for going back and forth. Some keep an old truck at the country place to do the things that only a truck can do and only an old one can do properly and memorably, though, alas, not greenly.

Energy around the county place. The more petroleum-based engines you have, the more fuel you will use and the bigger carbon footprint you create.

Older tractors are not fuel efficient, but if you have limited tractor needs, a used tractor in decent shape is much more dollar efficient than a new one. It doesn’t make much sense to spend $25,000 for a new, fuel-efficient tractor if you only use it 25 hours a year. You might use ten gallons less fuel for the work you do, but it comes at the cost of buying $20,000 more tractor than you really need.

New diesel tractor engines are likely to be greener than new gasoline tractor engines. Old engines of both types are not green, except under the influence of green eyeshades.

No solar-electric, hybrid or plug-in farm tractors are available though some are in the works. DIY solar tractors have been jiggered together; they work, but they’re expensive. GE used to make an electric lawn tractor under the name Elec-Trak, which now has a cult following.

Lawn tractors, chainsaws, ATVs and the like don’t use much fuel or generate much CO2 individually, but do collectively. The carbon footprint of my gasoline lawn tractor provided three identifiable excuses for not cutting the grass in 2008. Riding around like a zombie 12 times last year rather than 15 is one of my small steps toward keeping the walrus on Artic ice.

Human energy is green, and it can substitute for some farm and country tasks. But you have to factor in your tolerance for, and ability to do, hard work by hand. I split six to seven cords of firewood by hand every year instead of using a gasoline-powered hydraulic splitter. I would never consider sawing this wood manually—it’s too hard and too time-consuming. Some handwork substitution appeals to me, but I have no interest in reenacting the 17th Century.

While some might argue that boats on the Volga River should still be dragged upstream by gangs of men harnessed to a rope, I endorse using a diesel engine. I also oppose shipping stuff across oceans using galley slaves.

Country houses. These structures and outbuildings are usually candidates for improving heating efficiency.

Structures can be built or retrofitted to use much less energy, and they can be powered with green energy through wind and solar technologies. Complete energy self-sufficiency is possible, but it usually comes at a very high initial cost—in the neighborhood of $50,000 to $60,000. A mixed system — some site-generated energy, some drawn from the grid or a tank — costs less and is more practical in most cases, though it’s less green.

Photovoltaic panels and batteries are still not cheap enough to make the green choice the obvious economic choice. When money is no object, it’s very easy to be perfectly green and live in the world’s greenest house.

Firewood. Country houses are often heated with firewood. Is burning firewood green? Is it a carbon-neutral activity? Does it pollute the air? Is wood heat greener than heating with natural gas, fuel oil, coal-fired electricity, nuclear-powered electricity or hydro-electric power?

Answers for each comparison depend on how the firewood is harvested; whether it’s burned green or dry, in a fireplace or a woodstove; the degree of woodstove efficiency and the extent to which it diminishes exhaust gases and particulates. A heated discussion is taking place over how carbon-neutral wood fuel is, which, if nothing else, warms our fingers carbon-free as hundreds post comments pro and con.

An informative site is WoodHeat.org, a non-profit focused on the responsible use of wood as a home-heating fuel. The EPA’s current woodstove ratings are here.

Going green in the country costs money. Much of the old capital stock we use to do things and produce stuff is inefficient and generates a lot of carbon. Greener capital stock is still prohibitively expensive in most cases for most people. Greener alternatives — as obvious as a small diesel pickup or hybrid farm tractor — are still not on the market.

While nothing much has come out of the Kubotas and John Deeres, a grass-roots movement of tinkerers with the imaginations of Leonardo da Vinci is fabricating green farm machines and self-sufficient energy systems in their backyards. They’ve been smuggling these ideas into our collective unconsciousness for years.

Greening up the country is one part of going greener nationally. Can we become greener faster in a cost-effective way? And will we be clever enough in greening ourselves to offset the increasing demand for stuff that a growing population requires?

Hard questions usually have harder answers.